April 06, 2012

NBC Producer Out But Unnamed

The NY Tmes breaks its Trayvon Martin silence long enough to report at one of their blogs that an unnamed NBC producer has been fired as a result of the doctored Zimmerman "He looks black" report.

The people with direct knowledge of the firing characterized the misleading edit as a mistake, not a purposeful act.

Per their legal advice, presumably. Well, Mr. Zimmerman can take some satisfaction in learning that NBC is now back to supporting "innocent until proven guilty".

As for the Times, their first bylined report on this NBC debacle is "Good-bye". Anyone naive enough to rely on the Times for their news probably enjoys the fact that the biggest puzzles start on the front page, not with the crossword. And of course, we can easily rustle up devoted Times readers who sincerely believe in an unbiased media. Ignorance is bliss.

ERRATA: As previously noted, the NY Times broke radio silence on Trayvon Martin to report two minor corrections. We still await their thoughts on Charles Blow's March 25 column, which cited the 100 pound weight differential between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman as evidence of the implausibility of Zimmerman's self-defense claim. The Times subsequently downsized Zimmerman and reported a twenty pound differential.

The Times also discussed the ABC 'police tape shows NO INJURIES' video as evidence against Zimmerman; ABC later reversed course but the Times has gone dark.

But on the bright side, the Times did finally mention Spike Lee's deplorable tweeting, the New Black Panthers bounty (once), and now the NBC debacle. All late, of course, but patching the narrative takes time and patience.

REACHING BACK: When CNN fired Eason Jordan after a week-long imbroglio the Times' first report was of his dismissal. Maybe this is a professional respect thing, although Eason had been bashing US troops.

Comments

Obviously I'm not aware of how the MFM operates (I was gonna use the verb "works" and then thought better of it) but would the producer be more than some mid-level schmoe or not? Obviously he was entrusted with some level of autonomy on what he put together for a broadcast.

CH, without a name and position made public, the best assumption is that this "producer" is a complete fiction. Why fire someone for a mistake? And if it wasn't a mistake, why protect the person's identity?

Al Midhar and Al Hazmi were the two Saudis who were so appreciative of our efforts in
Bosnia, that they crashed United 77, into the WTC, Rapito, is the name for the Milan mosque
whose imam, Omar Nasr, was 'rendered to Egypt,
the founder Shaaban was part of the AQ network
in the Balkans.

Firing people is immaterial to the defamation in the first place. The point of the "we fired the only dishonest person in the newsroom" story is to facilitate the ongoing (false) claim, "we are objective."

“You’re going to find the two of them were closely engaged. It was a basic point-blank shot,” Zimmerman attorney Hal Uhrig told NBC’s “Today.” “But there’s going to be evidence that the police have, and they don’t do their investigation by sharing it with you and I.”

I've thought it was probably point blank from the beginning, due to the ejection malfunction. The ME report will include a notation on powder burns and/or stippling if the attorney's assertion is true.

... author Dan Riehl highlighted the edit to the Zimmerman 911 tape as it appeared in print at MSNBC. The MSNBC story was originally published March 21st, six days before the same edit was used in the Today show broadcast.

Editor’s note: A clarification was made to this story on March 28, 2012. An earlier version of the story truncated George Zimmerman’s quotes to a 911 operator in a way that may have changed the meaning.

The mental picture I have of the moment the shot was fired is Martin straddling Zimmerman. Zimmerman was trying to scoot over onto the grass and in doing so revealed the pistol to Martin. A struggle for the pistol ensued, with Zimmerman gaining control and raising it far enough to shoot Martin in the chest. The slide could have hooked on Martin flesh but it also could have hung on Martin or Zimmerman's clothing.

As recounted by one of the Robert Zimmerman's, after the pistol was revealed, Martin delivered a verbal death threat. He wouldn't be doing that if he didn't either have a grip on the pistol, or believe he could get one in short order, and disarm his intended victim.

I hear you on hooking fabric. I've heard empty casing in the pipe (plus full magazine), but on reflection, that's not authoritative. We'll find out in due course.

Whether Zimmerman said "coons" has very little bearing on the question of whether he had good reason to believe Martin would injure him seriously.
In Zimmerman's own account, Martin decked him with a single blow and was thrashing his head against the sidewalk.
Yet, we know his injuries were not serious enough to require stitches or other medical attention. In all video and photos available, he looks in fine shape with no visible cuts or bruises.
The Daily Caller, knowing its average reader has the IQ of kelp, openly doctored a photo to make it look more like there was some sort of scrape on Zimmerman's head. The fact that Tom and his choir is perfectly fine with that sort of fabricated evidence puts paid to any claim that have to be any sort of truth cops on this case.
Somehow I doubt the Daily Caller's fabricated evidence, nor the many faked photos of Martin as a gangsta spread across the Internet by avowed white supremacists -- which JOM pretends don't exist -- will play a part in any trial, should one at long last be deemed acceptable as a way to determine Zimmerman's guilt or innocence.
The pattern is clear here and across the wingnutosphere: it's identity conservatives, not liberals, who keep hyping the idea that Zimmerman's alleged racism is the key to this case.
Ordinary Americans, and the media they consume, have focused more on the Sanford PD's decision not to conduct a fuller investigation and the prosecutors decision not to charge Zimmerman based on an incomplete investigation leaving so many unanswered questions.
Racism is obviously a plausible motive for the Sanford PD's and prosecutor's decisions to buy the killer's own account of what took place. It's not the only explanation, of course. Incompetence and laziness is always the first, and most likely, culprit in any screwup.
But whether or not Zimmerman hated Afro-Americans just isn't a key point of this case, no matter how many times you doctor footage and photos to look like he had a scrape on his head...

Iggie, there are people in the world who are reasonable. Then there are clients who want you to live and breath for their companies, but who pay only reluctantly and seek to shuffle any ill fortunes onto one's shoulders.

--Whether Zimmerman said "coons" has very little bearing on the question of whether he had good reason to believe Martin would injure him seriously.--

Anybody keeping track of how many comments along the lines of "Whether Zimmerman [insert latest lefty meme to die] the fact remains he should be hanged from the yardarm at sunrise" buub and his compadres have posted here?

"An earlier version of the story truncated George Zimmerman’s quotes..."

More dissembling! When you "truncate" a quote you remove some of the words from the end to give a less-than-complete account of what was said. Truncation is a legitimate part of the editing process, but it must be used carefully so as to avoid taking away too much information.

There is another word entirely for selectively removing words from the middle of a quote to portray a diametrically opposite picture of what was actually said... that is called "lying", and it is used to prevent giving away too much information.

Apparently "lying" is also a legitimate part of the NBC and MSNBC editing process.

TG: Like I said, the racism allegation applies to the police's failure to fully investigate, leaving so many questions up in the air. The poll data backs me up on that because the question whether the police let the killer get away due to racism.
The fantasy JOM narrative is that if Zimmerman didn't hate Afro-Americans, there was no racism involved in the case is just silly and reflects a broader fantasy about how racism works.

Ignant: The only call for lynching has been by identity conservatives signing off on Martin's lynching. Ordinary Americans and the media they chose to read and listen to have made absolutely clear that the outrage here is that Zimmerman has not had to face cross examination nor to give testimony under oath or be confronted by witnesses who raise doubts about his story.
You're lying through your teeth, Ignatz, by suggesting liberal commenters here want Zimmerman lynched.

The Golf Channel knobs are all afraid of him so they won't say anything worse than "He lost his temper" when he acts like the world's biggest baby. In back to back groups on 18 Rory and Sergio pull the ball badly to the left. No F-bombs. No club throws.

There's a month's worth of crazy ass comments here by your compadres buub, saying that despite what the cops, Zimmerman and witnesses say that he should be in jail or executed. If you don't like that tell them to knock it off.

Your assumption that he would be convicted for, and I quote, "Martin's lynching" constitutes a desire to lynch Zimmerman and is itself a despicable defamation. You just want it to be all nice and legal like.

The only call for lynching has been by identity conservatives signing off on Martin's lynching.

I don't think it's out of bounds to call you a lying piece of shit for this. What was the purpose of the New Black Panther Party "WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE" posters? For Spike Lee and others to pass around what they thought was his address?

I have no idea what animates you, bubu, but it becomes clearer and clearer that what matters most to you is your identification with the left-fascist tribe. You don't give a rat's ass about the facts of the case; you want a man ruined (at least) for having the temerity to not surrender his life.

To hell with due process. To hell with presumed innocence. To hell with the right to self defense. YOUR TRIBE WANTS BLOOD. So you will tell any lie to get it.

--The only call for lynching has been by identity conservatives signing off on Martin's lynching.--

Think about that statement for a minute.
An enterprising attorney could subpoena thousands of blogs for ISPs of retards like young buub here and mulct no small percentage of them for substantial sums, especially those who use their real names. To say nothing of newspapers and letters to the editors, etc.
An ambitious lawyer might make young George [and himself] a billionaire.

Certainly so, Rob, but what is the end result of this, I don't just mean George Zimmerman's fate, as sad as that is. Lowry, having surrendered the floor, to Sharpton, about a week ago, now rightfully admonishes Derbyshire
for his tribalism, but why did he make that mistake in the first place.

Bunker: Do you deliberately lie about the evidence or are you so uninformed that you don't even know what the evidence is?

You are embarrassing yourself with the ignorance you are displaying here.

I'm not sure what an identity conservative is, but I'm pretty sure I'm not one. You, OTOH, are the quintessential identity moonbat. Try reading or listening to someone other than those hell bent on causing riots. There is no there there for such nonsense.

I look at this case as just more evidence that the left considers the rule of law an impediment to their dreams.

It's also a good study of how the left is happy to sacrifice one of its own for the cause, Zimmerman being a Democrat Hispanic, but one with the audacity to carry a gun and defend his life with it. The only way he would have been spared is if he'd been a Kennedy.

Again, I'm the one calling for the fullest possible investigation, a fair trial and a full airing of ALL the evidence.
Wingnuts are the ones insisting that Martin's lynching is fine, based on highly partial, highly contested, shreds of eyewitness testimony and ZERO physical evidence, that appear to show he attacked Zimmerman.
Meanwhile, the JOM choir has but two themes: unwittingly admitting they too agree there should be a trial (by pointing to this or that argument that could be made in Zim's defense) or calling people names.
I'm the one whose position reflects most clearly the incontestible fact that we don't yet know what happened.
Rob, especially, and the rest of the choir, base their entire analysis and response to the situation on the presumption that the killer's side of the story alone is sufficient, while repeating the bald-faced lie that we know for certain that "witnesses" say Martin attacked Zimmerman.
The fact is we have no eyewitness testimony as regards the shooting. The witness cited as backing Zimmerman's story -- "John" -- admits he didn't see the shooting AND didn't see how the altercation started.
Again, an unarmed teenager was shot dead by someone who admitted he pursued the teenager and thought he might have been engaged in a crime. The shooter isn't even arrested, and a full investigation is deemed unnecessary -- barring a full examination of exculpatory evidence, that is a lynching.
Yet JOMers are so spun, so inured to the ludicrous presumptions and propaganda spewed 24/7 by Fox/talkradio and the wingnutosphere, they deem anyone calling for a fair trial as demanding a "lynching."
As for Spike Lee and the splinter Black Panther party group, I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me, and anyone who suggests otherwise is simply lying.
I'm perfectly willing to limit my comments about people posting here to rest exclusively on what they post -- without trying to conflate their views with those of avowed white supremacists, etc -- but it seems a few JOMers are incapable of reciprocating even that minimum level of intellectual integrity...

Again, I'm the one calling for the fullest possible investigation, a fair trial and a full airing of ALL the evidence.

As long as it finds Zimmerman at fault.

We know this because you keep referring to the Martin "lynching". If you were looking for a full investigation, you'd say "killing": we know he was killed. We most emphatically don't know he was lynched.

It is a sheer delight to watch the Identity Teenager's morale deteriorate and his claims become more deranged as his hoped-for 1960's template blows up in his face. The Lynch Mob is growing sullen, depressed.

Charlie: I have repeatedly pointed out that a fuller investigation would benefit no one more than Zimmerman -- IF he's innocent.
So your characterization of my position is nakedly dishonest.
More important, perhaps, had the police conducted a full investigation and/or had Zimmerman been arrested, there would be virtually no scope for any allegations of racism, since all parties would have to accept that outcome or argue, somehow, that a fair trial would not lead to the best possible measure of justice under the circumstances.
I don't care whether Zimmerman is found guilty or not guilty of murdering Martin.
As I've said over and over and over again here, the problem I have with this case is that probably cause is undeniable, yet it was denied.

Bunker: You keep claiming that IF the police did a full investigation, blah, blah, blah. This mystifies me. What would be a full investigation over and above spending 7 hours at the scene the night of the incident, and 6 hours interrogating George Zimmerman. They called in Major Crimes. They have 6 witnesses on the record. They have the coroner's report, reports from police officers and paramedics. They are taking it to a Grand Jury. They probably also have the photos of George Zimmerman in close up, they probably have the doctor's report from the doctor GZ saw the following day. By now, they have a full background report on both Martin and Zimmerman. And by now any tox screens should be completed and any other forensic evidence examined.

What else do you want them to do?

Of course, we are not privy to all they have gathered in their investigations, nor should we be at this point.

You stated above that the evidence is "highly contested," which is something you've made up. So far, all the evidence that is public supports George Zimmerman's account of the incident.

BB - as I read them, the Florida statutes likely prohibit the cops from arresting Zimmerman.

As someone has explained it (somewhat), in many states, self defense is an affirmative defense. That means that the state needs probable cause that a killing occurred and the killer can be arrested. Then, the defendant has the burden of going forward with the affirmative defense of self-defense.

But, Florida is different. Not only must the state show that there is probable cause to believe that Zimmerman was the killer, but also that the killing was not lawful (i.e. not done in self defense).

If there is a trial it should end up the same, regardless. But, what is different are the requirements for an arrest. Knowing that there was probable cause to believe that Zimmerman is the killer would be all that would be needed for an arrest in many states. But, in Florida, they also have to have evidence that the killing was also not in self-defense. And, as long as there is more evidence supporting self-defense, than refuting it, no arrest can legally be made.

(1) A person who uses force as permitted (…) is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force (…) As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

The hysterical fool is the one calling for a "full investigation" even as one is in progress. That is not Sara. That is the Identity Teenager.

The Lynch Mob--Sharpton,Jackson, the NBBP, Calypso Louie and their witless allies have ill served this country.

"It is likely that, if not for conservative new media, the misleading edit, which inflamed racial tensions in the Martin case, and which was repeated by Stetler's own New York Times, would have gone unnoticed and uncorrected. As it is, the producer responsible for the edit at Today has been fired, but the individual who made the same edit to the earlier MSNBC story (since corrected) has not been identified or disciplined. Nor has anyone at any other outlet or network -- many of which made similar selective editing choices -- been punished."

What's the next city as JOM has its virtual tour while you have a real one?

I want a vista alert.

And that $10,000 BV bag Ann mentioned. Because my own initials are enough.

On a side note-one of my books from playing tiptoe through the footnotes and bibliographies arrived yesterday. Nice surprise. One of the participants in the infamous beer summit had written the foreword and boy was it graphic. I guess he assumed only like-minded friends would ever be reading.

Again, I'm the one calling for the fullest possible investigation, a fair trial and a full airing of ALL the evidence.

Bubu, are you dishonest or just stupid?

Do you not understand that the point of a full investigation is to determine whether or not criminal charges and a trial are warranted or not? They don't go together automatically.

And the fact is that a full investigation clearly was conducted. I'm sure you're upset that the SPD didn't provide names and addresses of all witnesses they talked to, and transcripts of all their interviews, or details of their crime scene reports with helpful reconstructions by the girl who plays Abby on NCIS, but they're not actually required to do that, you know.